Writing will without objection be relevant to the record. Entered into the record. I now recognize the distinguished chairman from maryland, mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings thank you, mr. Chairman. To you, Ranking Member cole and mr. Mcgovern. Members of the committee, i want to thank you for holding this meeting this afternoon. Support the proposed rule because this resolution to hold attorney general barr and sec. Wilbur ross in contempt of congress is necessary to preserve the integrity of this body and of the United States interests. The constitution mandates we conduct a census every 10 years. A thoughtful, fair and accurate count is critical to ensuring that we properly allocate funding and congressional apportionment. Year, the Trump Administration has stonewalled the Oversight Committee yes investigation into the real reason commerce secretary wilbur was trying for the first time in 70 years to add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census. Secretary ross testified under congress thatof he added the citizenship , toon, quote, solely help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights act. But we now know that claim was nothing but a pretext, that in fact the Supreme Court said that. Our committees investigation uncovered evidence that secretary ross launched a secret campaign to add the Citizenship Question within days after he assumed his post. We learned that secretary ross ignored warnings from experts inside and outside the census bureau, including the bureaus chief scientist. They said that they told him that adding a Citizenship Question would be costly and harm the accuracy of the census. Our investigation also revealed that secretary ross spoke with attorney general sessions. Kobach. Nnon and chris contrary to his testimony before the congress, the Commerce Department conjured up the Voting Rights rationale to hide these interactions. We first asked for documents from the department of commerce and department of justice when we were in the minority in april and may of 2018. Both departments ignored us. When i became chairman i renewed these requests on behalf of the committee and since then the administration has engaged in a purposeful effort to obstruct our investigation. And i do not use the word obstruct lightly. The departments have refused to provide key unredacted documents that we need to understand the truth about why they really made this decision. Instead, produced thousands of pages that were largely unresponsive, heavily redacted or publicly already available. When they let us interview witnesses, they ordered the witnesses not to answer more than 500 of our questions. Secretary ross even refused my request to meet with them to work it out. As a result, on april 2, more than three months ago, after a bipartisan vote, the committee subpoenaed the documents including a secret memo that the department of commerce wrote about the Citizenship Question and then gave to the department of justice. The departments have admitted to us that this memo exists. But they refuse to produce this document and many others. Last month, the Oversight Committee passed a resolution to hold attorney general william barr and secretary wilbur ross in contempt of congress. That vote, by the way, members of the committee, was bipartisan. However, many of our republican colleagues apparently support the Trump Administrations refusal to comply with our duly authorized subpoenas. They claim that we were interfering with the Supreme Courts decision on this issue. That argument never made sense since we launched our investigation in 2018. More than 10 months before the Supreme Court even took up the case, but even if you accept that misguided argument, the Supreme Court cases now over. So that argument is gone. The president announced last week that he would no longer pursue adding a Citizenship Question to the census. However, in the same speech, the president admitted that he wanted citizenship data to implement partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts. The president s statement directly contradicts secretary ross sworn testimony to congress that the only and sole reason the Trump Administration wanted this data was to help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights act. The departments of justice and commerce were engaged in a campaign to subvert our laws. And the processes that congress put in place to maintain the integrity of the senses. So we need to understand how and why that happens, in order to pass reforms, to ensure that it never happens again. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put the resolutions to hold attorney general barr and secretary ross in contempt of congress. I request the committee close rule to assist us in expeditiously pass this legislation. With that i yield back. Mr. Chairman i recognize the gentleman from ohio. The Ranking Member. No one stonewalled. The department of justice, and department of commerce are cooperating with the committees investigation about the Citizenship Question on the 2020 census. The administration has produced to the committee 14,000 pages from the Commerce Department, 17,000 pages from the Justice Department, and secretary ross voluntarily testified for over six hours this spring. Witnessesministration have voluntarily participated in day long transcribed interviews, providing information for the investigation. In fact, the committee is expected to conduct another transcribed interview this month. In all that testimony, six hours with the secretary and all the transcribed interviews, all of it undercuts the conspiracy theories about the administrations decision to have the Citizenship Question on the census. We have no testimony, none to support allegations about shadowy political operatives, senior white house officials conspiring to use the census for improper purposes. The real question is simple. Why dont the democrats want to know how many citizens are in this country . Judge alito said this. No one disputes the idea that we should know how many inhabitants in this country are citizens. You know the easiest way to figure that out . Ask a question on the census. Imagine that. Ask anyone in this country. Anyone of our districts, someone on the street, say do you think we should ask on the census if people are citizens of this country . Every Single Person you talk to will say, sure, arent we doing that already . And would say yes, we have done it in one form or another for 200 years. And the United Nations says we should do it. All kinds of other countries do it. The person will quickly follow up and ask you, arent we doing that already . Yes, yes. The idea they dont want to know is what boggles my mind. The Supreme Courts ruling was narrow. It was a technical issue. The Supreme Court did not say asking the question on the census was wrong. The Supreme Court said it was completely appropriate for the government to elicit citizenship information on the census. President trump is proceeding forward in a matter consistent with the decision. While i believe we need to ask the question on the census. I applaud the president for his work to ensure that we know more about citizenship of our country more than ever before. Given recent events, the contempt resolution, and the investigation frankly, has been rendered moot. Despite this, democrats are rushing this contempt resolution. Contempt of congress is one of congress most powerful tools and should be wielded responsibly. This is not a responsible use of that authority. This is an attempt to delegitimize the Citizenship Question. Something that frankly, everyone in the country thinks we are already asking, because we are, and everyone things we should continue. Consider this. Reformrsight and committee has legislative jurisdiction over citizens over census. If democrats wanted to remove the question, they couldve marked up delegate holmesnortons bill. No hearings on that bill. They want to go with contempt instead. I would urge the committee to vote against it. I yield back. Mr. Chairman i see you submitted an amendment. Would you like to testify on that amendment now . If that is appropriate for the chair. We have five amendments. We offered these all in committee. Mr. Chairman one amendment. But go ahead. They are all facts. One says the number of documents i just described and the fact mr. Gore voluntarily appeared in front of the committee. The other says the secretary of commerce produced his documents. The other says the secretary of commerce continued to engage with the committee. We have witnesses coming later this month. The last two are the most important to reiterate what we said. We offered all these in committee. These are all just facts. A Citizenship Question is asked by dozens of countries around the world, and the United Kingdom and United Nations recommends countries solicit citizenship information. The final amendment resolves that a Citizenship Question is not new and has appeared on every census from 1820 to 1950 and every longform census from 1970 to 2000 and every Community Survey from 2005 to the present. These amendments simply are in thee thought to add Committee Hearing and were voted down on a party line vote. I would respectfully ask the committee to include them. Mr. Chairman with reference to oh, i amment itself sorry tom. You are right there. How did i miss you . I have been very uncharacteristically quiet but i need to be louder on this one. Let me ask you, if i may, mr. Jordan, because i want to get some of the facts you raised in to record. How many pages has the Justice Department produced to date . Mr. Jordan 17,000. 17,000 documents. Mr. Cole the Commerce Department . Mr. Jordan 14,000. Mr. Cole has the Justice Department made officials available for transcribing testimony echo mr. Jordan yes, mr. Gore and others. We have other witnesses scheduled later this month area this month. Mr. Cole has the Commerce Department made any officials available . Quite a lot of information has been forthcoming to your committee. Mr. Jordan that is the way it is supposed to work. Mr. Cole this one puzzles me for a lot of reasons. Are the negotiations going on right now between justice i should ask both of you this. Mr. Chairman, you would know probably better than anyone else. Are there ongoing negotiations now between commerce and the committee echo [indiscernible] i guess they are referring to amendment 4. And five. Amendment 4 talks about the idea that commerce has produced thousands of documents. This amendment is misleading. The department of commerce has produced thousands of document that are rejected. Ted, or public redac already public. But it has refused to produce any of the unredacted key documents identified in the committee subpoenas, including emails about secretary ross. Very important documents. We have already lost a year of getting the census up and going, and through this process, and we have not been able to get the documents. They know what we need. We have narrowed it. They basically do what they usually do with this administration. They send a whole bunch of documents that are not the documents that we want and they know what we want. They know they exist. And by the way, as the Ranking Member just said, the Oversight Committee debated this, a similar amendment on june 12, and we rejected it on a bipartisan vote. Number on amendment five, this is the one that has a clause stating the department of justice has been cooperative with the committees investigation, submitting 17 thousand documents. This again is misleading. The department of justice has produced thousands of documents, redacted, already public, or nonresponsive. But doj has refused to produce any of the unredacted documents identified in committee subpoenas. For example, they refused to produce a secret memo, a handwritten note that was handdelivered from commerce to doj. The Oversight Committee already debated a similar amendment on june 12, and rejected it on a bipartisan vote. Before you proceed, and also i offer the courtesy to mr. Jordan on his amendment. Then i spoke to lets question him with reference to his amendment. Then go back to questioning both our distinguished witnesses with reference to their testimony. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I am sorry if i missed that. What are we doing right now mr. Chairman . His amendments. All of them together . All five. I would just add the secretary himself came and testified under oath for six hours. I figure that is the best way to get information from the department, to talk to the secretary himself, who was there for six hours answering every single members. With all due respect, if i might, the secretary came screaming and hollering. He did not want to come, and when he came im not knocking this, but it happened, he took about four bathroom breaks, each one almost 30 or 40 minutes. About 25 minutes, take that time off. I just wanted to be clear. And i am not knocking him. We get older. [laughter] i am old myself. [laughter] i understand that more than i care to. [laughter] and i refer to my age, not yours. Mr. Jordan, did the president exert executive privilege over documents pursuant to subpoena on april 2 . Has that been the basis for contempt resolution . Did the federal judge uphold . Exactly right. On the april 2 subpoena, the exerted executive privilege, which they obviously are entitled to do. I do not know what more the they can do. Documents they are allowed to give, they give. They testify for over six hours, the ones we cannot get, the exert executive privilege, that is the way the administration has carried out business. Thats the way its supposed to be. Maybe instead of focusing on citizenship you know how many hearings we have had an actual census process . Zero. Maybe instead of this singular focus on asking a question that everyone in the country thinks we should already ask and have been asking for 200 years, maybe we should figure out how the census is going to work and make sure it works well. I want to get to the point you raise in your amendments for the record. How many times has the Citizenship Question been listed on a decennial census from 1820 to 1950 . Every time. How many times was the Citizenship Question listed on a longform census from 1970 to 2000 . Every time. How many times was the Citizenship Question listed in the american Community Survey from 2005 to the present . Every time. Does the United Nations actually recommend a Citizenship Question as best practice when you are doing a census . The group you and i do not always like, yes they do. Clearly i would assume so, but you think this is a there arebecause ongoing negotiations to be bringing this before congress . This will put us in a legal situation as an institution. A very good point. I do not go into those things unless i am absolutely sure i am going to win because it weakens the power of the institution, if we go into court and fail. The courts are respectful of the division of power between the institutions. These are never slam dunk cases. They prefer, usually will ask over and over again, have you really worked as hard as you can to work this out . They do not want to be in the position of making these rulings. Well said. You are exactly right. This is premature at best. Even the Supreme Court in their 54 decision stopped it on a technical reason. I would argue across this country, everyone agrees except democrats in congress. With all do , you have an ample opportunity i just want to make sure the truth comes out. I heard that. Just to be clear, none of these amendments would actually add the Citizenship Question to the form. That is not what you are intending to do . We cant do that. Only the Commerce Department and administration can add to the form. These are statements in the resolution we offered in the committee that we think makes the resolution that are just just fact,nted in theth, we wanted resolution. And i note it does not include any conversation about the reductive nature of the documentation which has been submitted, nor the fact that since 1950 there has not been a question on the census. Is that right . This amendment is highly misleading. The Citizenship Question has not been asked on the short form of the census, the form that goes to everyone in the United States in 70 years. Correct. To my point at the short form that is used for every american has not included that for 70 years. 70 years. That is not reflected anywhere in the amendments i note. No, i dont see it. Thank you. It is reflected in the amendmen